Legal Opinion
Lanam v. Civil Service Commission
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 25, 1978No. Civ. 40791PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RATTIGAN, Acting P. J.
The City of Ukiah (City) requires certain classes of its employees to reside within a so-called “residency area” which is peripheral to its territorial boundaries. Respondent, an affected employee, was dismissed from his position because he resided outside the area. He commenced this proceeding in administrative mandamus against the City, seeking reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. The trial court determined that he had been unlawfully dismissed because the dimensions of the residency area violated the applicable provision of the California…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Ector v. City of TorranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- People v. HeckerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Paulus v. Board of TrusteesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Marabuto v. Town of EmeryvilleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Graham v. Kirkwood Meadows Public Utilities DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Cooperrider v. Civil Service CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. City of San LeandroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- McClelland v. Paris Public SchoolsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988